I don't see the irony. protection of our legal system is somewhat different than a specific opinion or philosophy.
unfortunately, our courts including SCOTUS are very political nowadays .. from that point of view it is ironic, but not, if you consider the original ideal of our courts!
if we protect abortion clinics, why not religious institutions or anything with a somewhat controversial issue associated?

5:47 pm June 26, 2014

Jake wrote:

Walter, so our freedom of speech only extends so far? We don't protect religious institutions? The religious go tax free. They can knock on my door 3 times a week because they do not need a soliciting permit. They are above that law (imagine that)

6:40 pm June 26, 2014

The true irony wrote:

Limited government conservatives pushing laws to restrict the rights of others.. Don't like abortion? Don't get one.

6:43 pm June 26, 2014

To 6:40 wrote:

That's not irony, that's typical republican hypocritsy.

7:24 pm June 26, 2014

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

6:40--What rights? Do you mean the "right" of abortion? First, it doesn't exist. At least not according to the US Constitution. And, second, what kind of question is that? Abortion (and I'm not irretrievably pro-life, by the way) always involves the cessation of human life. Yes, it does. Now sometimes that might be better, but it always involves the cessation of human life. In other words, abortion is literally a matter of life and death.

Your question is akin to positing the following: Don't like murder? Don't kill. Yes, it's basically the same thing. Sometimes the law allows the killing of others--e.g., death penalty, personal defense, war, etc. But we don't, as a decent society, however, carelessly bandy about such callous references to a procedure (abortion) that literally involves life and death.

That said, laws can and should be enacted to restrict abortion (again, not outright bans). And it is entirely appropriate to enact these regulations due to abortion's inherent association with issues of life and death.

And there's nothing ironic about it.

9:06 pm June 26, 2014

Lee Beck wrote:

"The Massachusetts law keeps people off of public sidewalks, while the court’s regulation doesn’t." The critcal question may be whether the plaza is a public space. It's rather curious that this critical difference is at the bottom of the article.

"An alternate phrase heard by anti-choicers is: 'It's a life'—another ambiguous and vague term. A fetus is CERTAINLY ALIVE and it might fairly be argued that a fetus is a distinct living entity..." (EMPHASIS ADDED)

Where's that quote from? Pro-CHOICE Canada Action Network. They still believe in the right to abortion, but admit the fact that fetal life does exist. And if it is ALIVE, which it is, then I would presume that an abortion would end the fetus's life.

Exhibit Number two:

"Some people say that if the foetus is not a person, then abortion deserves no condemnation. This oversimplifies the issues. Even if the foetus is not a human being, it is clearly regarded by most people and most societies as something special that should not be casually discarded."

This from BBC.CO.UK. Another non pro-life source. So, yes, the Don't want an abortion? Don't have one argument is absurd. Just like your continuous drivel.

9:00 am June 27, 2014

Julie Keene wrote:

The Supremes have demonstrated concern over things that affect them, as in the cell phone ruling. But as they're all past childbearing age, they are indifferent about intimidation at family planning clinics. It will be interesting to hear their defense of their own buffer.

10:42 am June 27, 2014

Aileen Cheetham wrote:

Poor American women, such heartless treatment. Please get in step with the rest of the civilised western world.
If allowed early enough it is the equivalent of a teaspoon of cells, it is nothing more.
Hardship and Heartache are the outcomes of FORCING women and their FAMILIES TO GO TO TERM..
CHOICE IS ALL.

1:33 pm June 27, 2014

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

10:42--FORCING? Who's forcing whom? First, in the absence of the horrible act of rape, the pregnancy was not "forced;" second, what "choice?" Do you mean the choice to end human life? Well, you do. Again, outright bans are inconceivable, but because abortion does end human life, "choice" needs to be tempered with reasonable restrictions on that choice.

The force involved is forcing the unborn to die. And, as much as that outcome is undesirable, the alternative effects on the mother could (her career path probably wouldn't cut it, but her life certainly would) be worse. Yes, sometimes abortion is better, but it can and should be regulated and restricted.

5:20 pm June 27, 2014

Eddie wrote:

As soon as conservatives support a bill to (1) force the male who is responsible for the pregnancy, to provide child support for 18 years; or (2) if the father cannot be determined, provide child support from governmental coffers for 18 years; then (and only then) will I know that these conservatives really care about the welfare of BOTH the child and mother. As things are now, the conservative attitude is (once the baby is born) to hell with the welfare of the child and mother.

9:44 pm June 27, 2014

Alexander Hamilton wrote:

As soon as liberals (1) give more of their money to charitable groups (liberals give less than conservatives--way less, adjusted for wealth!--many studies bear this fact out) or (2) actually do more than, among others, the Catholic Church, most Protestant denominations, and other faith-based groups that have done HISTORICALLY more for charitable causes than all other organizations combined, will I accept the fact that abortion is little more than a revered sacrament to the left that must remain inviolate.

12:08 pm June 28, 2014

Wally wrote:

I agree with Lee Beck that the concept of public property is important to an explanation of why the Supreme Ct. can have a buffer zone and a health clinic cannot. It would seem to me that. since all gov't buildings and properties are owned by the taxpayers, the Court's buffer zone is as "public" as a smaller municipality's roads and sidewalks. Also, the concept of choice itself might offer a reasonable solution to the problem. Perhaps pro-life people should be permitted to set up a table within a buffer zone to offer counseling and literature to women entering the health facility. They would not be permitted to solicit visits to the table, but they would be there for women who choose to use their services.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

About Washington Wire

Washington Wire is one of the oldest standing features in American journalism. Since the Wire launched on Sept. 20, 1940, the Journal has offered readers an informal look at the capital. Now online, the Wire provides a succession of glimpses at what’s happening behind hot stories and warnings of what to watch for in the days ahead. The Wire is led by Reid J. Epstein, with contributions from the rest of the bureau. Washington Wire now also includes Think Tank, our home for outside analysis from policy and political thinkers.